Our client is a young man diagnosed with a myriad of mental health problems including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Depression as well as being diagnosed with Borderline Autism.
The children and “youths” – as they are described by the Crown Prosecution services – that have the great misfortune of being admitted into police custody exhibit much more complex needs than their adult counterparts.
Mental health problems were diagnosed in 33% of children and young people (between the ages of 10 and 17) admitted into custody between April 2014 and March 2016.
Our client was charged with grievous bodily harm (GBH) and engaging in controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate relationship.
In the aftermath of their strained relationship, he was accused of these offences by his ex-partner.
It was alleged by the complainant in this case that our client attended her workplace, Enfield McDonalds, and attacked her verbally and physically by jumping over the counter and chasing her through the restaurant before striking her in the head.
As soon as the McDonald’s restaurant manager called 999, the police were called to the scene.
The complainant then alleged to the police officers on site that almost six months earlier, in a separate incident, our client had allegedly attacked the complainant with a “Zombie” or “Rambo” knife, resulting in a severe injury.
She also alleged that throughout the course of their relationship, our client engaged in controlling and coercive behaviour such as intimidation through texts, isolation from her family and support structures and repeated violence.
Despite accepting that the events in Enfield McDonald’s occurred, our client refuted the further allegations of grievous bodily harm and coercion and controlling behaviour.
Stuart Miller Solicitors’ criminal defence solicitor Duygu Basiguzel obtained medical reports from experts relating to our client’s mental health after receiving instructions from the client about the case.
These reports described how our client’s mental health affected his life and the events at issue in the case.
As case preparation continued prior to trial, the Crown Prosecution Service relied upon CCTV and SMS message evidence that were never disclosed to the defence, Duygu Basiguzel of Stuart Miller Solicitors.
At this point, Duygu made two separate requests for a Non-Disclosure Hearing, but the Crown still refused at this point to disclose the evidence they were relying upon to the defence, Stuart Miller Solicitors.
Because of our solicitors’ unwavering dedication, the Court and Crown offered “no evidence” and decided to drop the case a day before the hearing. Our client’s case was dismissed.